Sarah Palin: A Homerun for McCain?

It appears McCain has indeed "swung for the fences" with his vice presidential selection. All signs this morning point to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, someone I've mentioned here on a couple of different occasions. (And someone who a BraggingWrites commenter "Ted", really, really liked).

In a normal year with a level playing field, McCain's choice should have been Mitt Romney. But McCain is facing an uphill battle over the next two months. In Barack Obama, he is up against an extraordinarily well-funded, remarkably charismatic candidate. The anti-GOP sentiment in the country is real and formidable, as is the so-called "Bush Fatigue". (McCain also inadvertently dealt an enormous blow to Romney's chances of being chose with his "inability" to answer a question last week about how many houses he and Mrs. McCain own).

So, who is Sarah Palin? At 44 years old, she is the first female Governor of Alaska, an accomplished outdoors(wo)man and athlete, and a former beauty queen who finished second in the Miss Alaska contest in 1984. She and her husband have five children, the eldest of whom will be headed to Iraq in September with the Army. She is currently the most popular governor in America (in terms of her statewide approval ratings), and she has a record of reform, particularly in terms of aggressively fighting corruption. Perhaps most importantly for McCain, who continues to be viewed with some suspicion from the "base" of the GOP, Palin's conservative bona fides -- social and fiscal -- are unassailable. Lastly, as a woman, she has the potential to appeal to disenchanted Hillary supporters.

What will we hear about her from Democrats or anti-McCain members of the media?

1. She's too inexperienced: While it is true that she is relatively green, she is really no less experienced than Barack Obama, and he's at the top of the Democratic ticket! (And in terms of executive experience, by virtue of having any, she already has more than Obama). Quite frankly, I don't think the "experience" argument is one that Democrats will want to make given the obvious and potentially unfavorable comparisons to Obama's experience (or lack thereof) that will result.
2. The "scandal" in Alaska: Quite frankly, I can't completely understand this one as it seems to be rather complex. Long story short, Governor Palin fired the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety and offered him a spot running the state's ABC Board instead. He turned down the offer, and then alleged that Palin had fired him because of his refusal to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who is in the process of divorcing Palin's sister. The story is full of twists and turns and at the end of the day, I don't think it has any legs.
   

Given the reality of the political situation facing McCain, I believe that, on balance, he has made an excellent choice. It's unexpected, it's going to catch many in the media off-guard (in a beneficial way for McCain), it's bold, and it reinforces McCain's "maverick" reputation for which he is so often praised.

I think the Palin choice is a game-changer, and that's exactly what McCain needs.

---

UPDATE: ABC News reports that Palin is still in Alaska, raising the prospect that she is, not, in fact the choice. Personally I believe this is a smokescreen designed to throw the media off the scent. BUT, if she indeed is not the pick, watch for three more wild-card women to emerge as the actual pick:

1. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman
2. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
3. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

We'll know by Noon today at the absolute latest...

Will McCain Swing for the Fences?

As we finally enter the homestretch of the 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama should probably have a 5- to 10-point lead in the polls, but instead finds himself effectively tied with (or even trailing) John McCain. In generic poll after generic poll, Democrats are decisively favored over Republicans, yet for some reason, Obama lags. The Obama Campaign knows this, is nervous about it, and their anxiety has started to show. In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama made a tacit admission that a bolstering of his experience and qualifications – particularly with regard to foreign policy – was necessary. Biden is not likely to do any harm for Obama’s chances, particularly given that I would expect the Obama Campaign to have him speak only on a scripted basis to avoid his infamous propensity to put his foot in his mouth. On the other hand, it’s difficult to make the argument that choosing Biden will help much either. Would a president and vice president who were both sitting senators – Biden for 35 years – really represent a departure from the “same old Washington politics”? Does that truly represent change?

Switching gears, John McCain made a colossal mistake last week. Just at the moment when he seemed to truly be gaining some momentum, he committed a gaffe that will likely haunt him all the way until Election Day. Asked by two reporters from Politico.com how many houses he and his wife own, McCain offered the following answer:

“I think – I’ll have my staff get to you – It’s condominiums where – I’ll have them get to you”.

Wow. That one hurt. In McCain’s defense, were one to take the time to try to understand the reason he could not provide a clear answer (namely that there are properties owned by his wife’s family trust of which he may not be aware and probably cannot actually be considered an owner), it becomes easier to understand his hesitation or inability to answer the question. Unfortunately for McCain, no one is going to take that time. The national media certainly won’t, though were Obama to commit a similar mistake I feel confident his fourth estate admirers would quickly come to his rescue. No, regardless of the nuances or complexities that led to his non-answer, the narrative has been established that John McCain is so “rich” and so “out of touch” that he cannot even keep track of how many houses he and his wife have. In a time of economic weakness – especially when the housing market is bearing much of the brunt – this is the type of answer that loses elections.

Meanwhile, back at the Democratic Convention, Monday night was initially billed as Michelle Obama’s time to shine. This changed slightly when Ted Kennedy – “’lion’ of the Senate” – opted to make the trip to Denver, and then further, to address the convention. It is truly sad that Kennedy is gravely ill with a terrible disease I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But can the Democratic Party and the media spare me some of the sycophantic coverage of the “heroic” Kennedy making the “courageous” journey “against medical advice” to “summon the strength” to speak in order to symbolically “pass the torch” to Barack Obama? As John McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk, my friends. To the extent that Ted Kennedy was ever worthy of holding the same torch as either of his late brothers, that torch was extinguished by the water underneath Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick in 1969 – along with the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. I couldn’t help but wonder if Chris Matthews was aware of the irony when he said on MSNBC Monday night:

“He’s a sentimental guy, whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, and he looks out for other people”.

Really?

Speaking of Democratic political giants prone to moral failings, when Bill Clinton addresses the convention on Wednesday night, many in the Obama Campaign will be watching nervously to see just how warm or sincere he seems in his support of Obama. Already controversy has surfaced over the former president’s reported displeasure at being scheduled to speak on a night the DNC has themed “Securing America’s Future”. Apparently “The Man from Hope” would much rather speak on economic issues and is bitter about a missed opportunity to do what he loves most: talk about himself. Obviously Clinton believes the economic strength of the 1990’s is his best chance for a lasting legacy not involving the name “Monica”, and it’s a safe bet that the narcissist-in-chief will say as little about Obama as he thinks he can get away with, attempting instead to better his own political standing first and foremost, and if he has extra time, that of his wife too. I remain puzzled that Obama did not dispatch with both Clintons on the convention’s first night, much as McCain is smartly doing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Day One of the GOP Convention. The Clintons and the ever-present melodrama in their wake pose a real threat to distract from one of the Obama Campaign’s best opportunities to introduce their candidate to the nation on their terms. And the Clintons wouldn’t have it any other way.

Looking ahead to Thursday night, Obama is slated for his own star turn. Rather than address the convention in the convention hall as is traditionally done, he and his campaign have opted instead to use neighboring Invesco Field (home of the Denver Broncos) so that “The One” can make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 adoring disciples. I predict that, like his “premature victory lap” in Europe, the Obama Campaign may come to regret sensationalizing and over-hyping what is almost certainly the most important speech any presidential candidate ever gives in the course of a presidential campaign. American voters get it by now. We understand that people literally faint at his rallies, that it’s “cool” to support Obama, and even a Republican like me can’t help but find the Illinois Senator awfully likeable at times on the surface. What American voters may not get, however, is just precisely what is in store for us if Obama becomes president. It seems unlikely we’ll learn much more on Thursday, as a speech in an outdoor stadium to such an enormous crowd is not a setting that lends itself to a serious and sober discussion of what specifically Obama plans to do as president. In making this choice, the Obama team will only perpetuate the very negatives so aptly pointed out in McCain’s “Celeb” ad. Hope and change are wearing thin, and “I’m not George W. Bush” is in and of itself not sufficient rationale for being elected to the highest office in the land. Voters want a president, not a rock star.

With back-to-back party conventions likely nullifying the usual post-convention “bounce” in the polls, there’s a great chance that the fall campaign will officially begin in a deadlock. John McCain is likely to name his running mate any day now, and the Republican Convention begins next week. McCain needs a game-changer to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama, and he has a remarkable opportunity for just that after Obama’s bland, status quo choice of Biden. The how-many-houses gaffe should effectively eliminate Mitt Romney as a potential vice president for McCain, because having an honest-to-God multi-millionaire join the ticket with a man now being portrayed as fabulously wealthy and aloof would make the Obama Campaign’s ads too easy. On the other hand, an argument could be made that McCain’s misstep last week boosts Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s chances given his bona fide blue collar background, but in many ways, Pawlenty represents the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either. McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Each has pros and cons to be sure, but unlike Obama, McCain’s vast experience affords him more leeway to swing for the fences in selecting his running mate. If he wants to win in November, he may have to do just that.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Barack Obama: "Our American Prayer" ???

Over the last few months there has been much discussion of the quasi-deification of Obama in popular culture. Primarily it has been tongue-in-cheek, and the McCain campaign even got in on the action, releasing a clever ad a few weeks ago called "The One" that humorously took on the phenomenon.

Today, however, I was directed to a YouTube video. I can't accurately describe it, other than to say it's just downright creepy, and so I would only encourage you to watch it for yourself:

What I can say with confidence is that this is not the sort of thing that will help Obama. Voters, I think, have some degree of fatigue when it comes to celebrities using their fame to promote their political views. This video, though, takes the "Obamessiah" phenomenon to an entirely new and arguably inappropriate level, tosses in a healthy dose of celebrity worship for good measure, and the end result is an extremely bizarre and, in my view, off-putting production. The more this video is seen, the better it is for John McCain.

So It's Biden...

So Barack Obama has opted to go with Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. I have been ruminating about this since the news was confirmed late Friday night, and I still haven't quite been able to crystallize my thoughts on it.

Bottom line: good choice, but not a great choice. I still argue (as I did here last week), that if Obama wanted a guaranteed win in November, Hillary Clinton was the right choice. He's gone another way, however, and in doing so, he has picked someone who I certainly don't think will do any harm, though I question how much Biden will help.

More on this later today or later this week...

"Dream Ticket" Déjà Vu

Here's a slight follow-up to today's earlier post: Can Obama Close the Deal?

As I wrote, with all of the bumps in the road for Obama and his team lately, it should come as no surprise that the Obama Campaign leaked Monday evening that his vice presidential selection was imminent. It was a good move, taking the focus away from Obama’s shaky weekend performance at Saddleback, and probably attempting to preemptively bury news of a McCain lead in the polls that their internal polling may have already indicated was coming. Indeed, since Monday night, the Obama veep frenzy has been at full steam, and the three names that are most commonly mentioned now as the likely choice are Delaware Senator Joe Biden (this week’s fashionable pick), Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (the flavor du jour in early August), and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (the first trial balloon floated by the Obama camp last month). Each man has his strengths and weaknesses, and Biden and Bayh in particular would represent very safe choices. But I smell a rat, and I think Obama has a surprise up his sleeve.

All of this week's buzz and especially the heavy focus on Biden, Bayh and Kaine may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In fact, I suspect this is an elaborate ruse designed to give maximum impact and surprise value to the person who I now believe (and who Republicans most fear) Obama will tap as his running mate: Senator Hillary Clinton. Yes, I’m aware of the many reasons why he wouldn’t or shouldn’t pick her, and I feel certain that in his heart-of-hearts, he does not truly want to pick her. But if today's Reuters/Zogby poll is correct and he is now trailing McCain, he may just need Hillary, her electoral strength, and perhaps most importantly, her supporters. Choosing Clinton would ensure that next week’s convention would be a veritable love-in for the Democratic Party, and the groundbreaking ticket of an African-American and a woman would be historic manna from heaven for the media. The GOP largely recognizes this, and I think any realistic Republican would admit that if Obama picks Hillary, it’s game, set and match for the Democrats.

Could the “dream ticket” become a reality? More and more, I think it just may.

(A version of this post can also be seen at amNewYork's Politirazzi).

Can Obama Close the Deal?

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. An argument can be made however, that the trip was a mistake, and that in fact, it marked a turning point in the campaign at which McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. Have the last few weeks simply been bumps in the road for the usually brilliant Obama Campaign, or do they portend the beginning of a McCain resurgence?

Obamamania reached fever pitch in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and lastly to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to hop the pond, generally enjoying leads in the polls of anywhere from 6 to 10 points. As a Republican, I was admittedly nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a very presidential feel to it – certainly by design – and while I was apprehensive about the Obama Campaign’s ability to help the voters envision a President Obama, it now appears they may have overplayed their hand. The bottom line is that the trip was over-the-top. No presidential candidate has ever attempted such a bold maneuver during the campaign. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama Campaign staffers in Freudian slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. Then, of course, there was the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, a second-choice venue after the campaigns request to use the Brandenburg Gate – site of JFK’s and Ronald Reagan’s famous presidential speeches – was denied. Tens of thousands did indeed turn out to hear Obama’s speech, one in which he proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” and that included lines such as “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.” This line epitomized the hubristic nature of the entire trip, and ultimately, I believe many Americans were put-off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain Campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” I think the Obama Campaign recognized this too, evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a “bump” in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from John McCain and his campaign. First there was the now well-known “Celeb” ad released by McCain, comparing Obama and his fame to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. While many in the media echoed the Obama Campaign’s response that the ad was silly or juvenile, McCain surrogate and friend, Senator Lindsay Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose, and likely the reason for its subsequent effectiveness. When asked about it, Graham said the primary theme of the ad was, "fame without portfolio. [There is this] hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there. So fame without portfolio is sort of fashionable. But leadership without experience is dangerous." This ad represented one of the deftest moves to date by McCain and his campaign. By using Hilton and Spears in the ad, attention was guaranteed, but more importantly, they used that attention to shrewdly call attention to a key argument of theirs that Obama is the proverbial “empty suit”. The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One”, poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on fervor of religious proportions.

And the hits kept coming. Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and opined as to the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” The McCain Campaign reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which it seems obvious was the case. In a slow pre-Olympics news cycle, this was the primary story for several days, eventually forcing Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to respond. When he did so, his explanation of the Senator’s comments was laughable. “What [Obama] was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs claimed, though most saw through this feeble defense and recognized Obama’s comments for what they were. Obama had used a similar line before, but the irony was that neither McCain nor the RNC, (or anyone else affiliated with either) have ever made comments or claims like those Obama referenced. Doing so, they realize, would be extremely unwise politically, and so the McCain campaign was very wise to promptly call Obama out on his ploy, as doing so was the best way to prevent him from trying a similar, racially-tinged maneuver later in the campaign.

Obama’s late summer of discontent was still not over yet, though. Towards the end of July and first part of August, stories began to surface about Democratic “nervousness” about Obama’s apparent inability to “close the deal” against McCain. Generic polls show the American public decisively favoring Democrats this election year, yet the party’s nominee was finding himself in essentially a statistical tie with McCain in the polls. There was chatter about the party having “buyer’s remorse” in selecting Obama over Hillary Clinton. Exacerbating this was Obama’s curious decision last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party behind Obama, the argument can be made that it will do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of hardcore Hillary supporters such as the so-called P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass") group who still are extremely reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband too. It’s inconceivable that this subplot and the almost certain drama that will follow won’t distract from the Democratic Party’s “official” introduction of Obama to the nation. Further, Obama’s acquiescence to the Clinton’s demands prolongs some of the doubts many Democrats may have about him, and calls into question his willingness or ability to take a stand for himself.

Barack’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at Saddleback Church in California. Both candidates appeared there for the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of the very popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, telling Pastor Rick “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”. Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have an informed opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s. McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and likeable, and he was as forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. On issue after issue, McCain gave answers that seemed to have far greater depth than those of his relatively inexperienced opponent. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I actively felt enthusiastic about John McCain, Republican Nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience – both political experience and life experience – was impossible to miss. The Obama Campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months – none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally – perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect Obama would be in serious trouble by now.

And maybe he is. In a bit of shocker, a Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows McCain with a 5-point lead over Obama -- a 12-point shift in the Arizona Senator's favor from July, when Obama led by as many as 7 points. In reality, the polls fluctuate frequently, but it's obvious that this race is very close – probably tied or with Obama leading very slightly. So perhaps Democrats should be nervous, and maybe there is just cause for buyer’s remorse. After all, as the stakes increasingly rise and the spotlight progressively brightens, it seems as though Obama and his campaign are more frequently failing to rise to the occasion. But as much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. The Obama Campaign realizes this, and the primary reason the Obama campaign leaked news of an impending vice presidential selection yesterday was almost certainly to place the focus back on their candidate, on a new story, and to return to some of the excitement and energy surrounding Obama that they have used to such great effect throughout this election year. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama and his campaign begin to again rise to the occasion? Can he close the deal?

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Not the Hillary We Thought We Knew?

Despite being a Republican, I will readily admit that I gained newfound respect for Hillary Clinton during the course of her campaign, particularly the tenacity with which she continued to battle Barack Obama until the very end. I was frequently impressed by her command of facts and the ease with which she could articulate her positions. She debated well, and showed flashes of humor and charm that I had not previously seen. I had decided a few months ago that if there had to be a Democrat in the White House, I hoped it would be Hillary. I felt she was more qualified than Obama, and from the standpoint of national security and foreign policy, I felt that she’d be less likely to “go wobbly” on us, to quote the great Margaret Thatcher.

With that said, in reading Joshua Green’s much-discussed article this month in The Atlantic, I feel as though a Hillary Clinton presidency might have been far worse than I had begun to think. Green’s article is a must-read for political junkies (particularly the juicy memos and emails that Green obtained and provides), but for Clinton supporters – especially those who contributed to or raised money for her campaign – I recommend a stiff drink prior to, during and probably after reading it.

The article exposes a campaign riddled with paranoid infighting, hurt by damaging leaks, weakened by inept financial management, crippled by an absence of contingency planning and, most of all, fundamentally flawed by shockingly poor leadership from the top – from Hillary, herself. Green paints a picture of a candidate who, despite starting her campaign with a seemingly insurmountable set of advantages, still managed to make mistakes often enough and significant enough to squander everything. A Hillary Clinton is revealed in the article far different from the one we saw on the campaign trail, often exuding confidence and strength. Instead, the reader meets a Hillary who is unwilling and/or unable to make the tough decisions, incapable of maintaining cohesion among her senior staff, and alarmingly unskilled at quickly adapting her strategy, message and resources on the fly – an imperative in a national campaign.

For those who supported Hillary, I suspect reading this will be unsettling and almost incomprehensible. After all, presumably so much of what attracted them to her in the first place seems to be completely lacking. For those who contributed to the Clinton Campaign, the mismanagement of campaign resources chronicled in the article is staggering, and sure to prompt stomach-turning regret about where that check could have been spent instead. For me, someone who had started to reconcile himself to the real possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, there is great relief. If a President Hillary had exhibited the indecisiveness and ineptitude of Candidate Hillary, the country would have paid the price. Speaking of paying the price, if a Hillary Clinton Administration had mismanaged taxpayer money as woefully as they did campaign funds, the consequences would have been tremendous.

In many presidential campaigns, an important test of the candidates is often overlooked, particularly for those candidates who lack “executive experience”, such as Clinton, Obama and McCain this year. In actuality, running a campaign – now nearly a billion dollar enterprise with thousands of employees, incredibly high stakes and stratospheric stress levels – is perhaps one of the best indicators of a candidate’s executive ability and skills. There are few governors (even few CEO’s) who have had to deal with an operation as complex as a presidential campaign. If Green’s article is accurate, Hillary failed this test spectacularly. On the other hand, to Barack Obama’s credit – and as much as I might worry about his lack of experience – his campaign has been run to near perfection thus far. Should he go on to win in November, I’ll be able to take some comfort in that knowledge.

---

As an aside, I was recently asked by amNewYork -- an excellent and growing publication here in NYC -- to contribute to their political blog, Politirazzi (http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/). My first post -- the same content you just read -- was published there today. I'd encourage you to check out Politirazzi frequently, as there are 11 other individuals blogging there as well, and the commentary is intelligent and thought-provoking. In addition to my new work with Politirazzi -- and those of you who have been reading BraggingWrites for awhile probably know this already -- I have also been contributing a weekly column to a fantastic website called SpliceToday (http://splicetoday.com/) for a few months now. My column -- called "Far Corner, Right Side" -- is political in nature every other week, and about basically anything else in between. I would also encourage you to check out SpliceToday as often as you can for an eclectic mix of content and commentary. This happened to be a non-political week for me at Splice, and so if you're a football fan, you might enjoy this week's column about Brett Favre's move to the New York Jets. As always, thanks for reading, thanks for commenting, and thanks for the support!

Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).